PDA

View Full Version : Avanti engine info



JDP
12-12-2006, 10:44 AM
here's some interesting data on the Avanti V8 from Jet Thrust News:


"There are many misconceptions about the components of an Avanti engine. Many people think that every part of those engines were a special high performance part. I think this happens because it is common for the big three to produce special heavy-duty parts for performance engines. They do this because the standard bread and butter engines are engineered (read that cheapened) to be suitable for no more than standard use. This saves them a lot of money. Letís use the venerable Small-block Chevy as an example. An engine in a Caprice will have a thin wall two bolt main block, a cast crank, light duty connecting rods, small port and valve light weight heads, a very conservative cam, and a thin tooth type timing chain on a weak aluminum/nylon sprocket. The special high performance Small-block will typically have a thicker high nickel four bolt main block, forged crank, stronger forged rods, free-flowing large valve heads, performance cam, double row roller timing chain, and a few other special items. This also holds true for Ford and Chrysler. Studebaker did not have the financial resources to produce the variety of parts required in order to make their engines application specific. Given the quantity of units produced, it might not have been cost effective anyhow. Consequently, they engineered their engines for worst case scenarios and light duty applications resulted in gross over design. Some heavy-duty parts were added as the need arose just as a few special performance parts were manufactured as needed. All Studebaker V8ís have a forged crank, a thick high nickel block, and adequate connecting rods.

This brings us back to the Avanti engine. By 1962, the big three were producing 400 plus cubic inch engines. Studebaker needed a performance engine for their new Avanti that would compete with the big three but could not spend much money on it. According to Otis Romine, work on hopping up the existing engine was already underway when Andy Granatelli showed up with a supercharger in hand hoping to sell it to Studebaker. I donít know who is responsible for the final product but I believe they combined information learned from the Holman and Moody compact stock car 59 Lark project with input from Andy. They simply hot-rodded the standard production engine knowing it was plenty strong enough to withstand this type of use. This article will examine what was done to make more power. It is surprising how many of the components came right from the parts bins. Some of these are easy to spot by nature of their early part numbers. What follows is a rundown of the engine parts and where they came from.

Block Initial high RPM testing revealed an oil drain back problem. It seems the window in the valley was too small and in the wrong place for oil to drain properly. Revising the casting solved that problem. Along with that, a host of other changes were made to update the block. A full-flow oil filter was added, drain holes for the heads were enlarged, and the freeze or core plug holes were bored through for use with industry standard cup plugs. These changes were put into production in mid 1962 for the entire V8 engine line. Thatís right, the only difference between a full-flow 259 and an R2 block is the ID number stamped ahead of the valley cover. The parts book shows a separate number for an R1/R2 block only because all blocks were supplied fitted with pistons. The Avanti pistons are different than standard 289 production items, as are the 259 pistons. The bare blocks are the same.

Pistons The intended use of the Avanti engines necessitated a new piston. That was also an item that could be redesigned and manufactured cheaply. The standard piston used 1950 technology for its design. The new R1/R2 piston was made with then current industry standard design. It is a flattop piston made with a high strength cast aluminum material and has a non-full, slipper style skirt. It is lighter and stronger than the standard piston plus has less operating friction. It al

Dick Steinkamp
12-12-2006, 11:55 AM
I don't know the Stude engine well enough to comment on that section, but the Chevy part is not factual. (I wonder how much of the Stude part is true?)



ALL small block Chevy blocks built at the time of the original Jet Thrust Studebaker motors had 2 bolt mains. 4 bolt mains didn't begin until much later.

ALL SBC blocks (of the same CID) were the same casting prior to machining. There were no "high nickel" or thicker wall blocks for the HP motors. In fact, many 283 blocks (3.875" bore) would bore to the 327 bore (4").

There is no such thing as "light weight" Chevy heads in that era. In fact, the same head was used on a 375 HP Corvette 327 as was used in a 300 HP Caprice.

ALL small block Chevy's at that time had forged cranks. (OTOH, the switch by all manufacturers to cast cranks in the mid to late 60's was because they were better. Here's a blub on the Pontiac switch...

" Have you always dreamed of owning a forged crank? Stop dreaming. Cast Pontiac cranks are 15 percent lighter than their forged cousins. The ductile cast-iron material of which modern cranks are made also absorbs a certain amount of vibration and so naturally minimizes harmonics.

Forgings are not structurally as rigid as a cast crank. The torsional property of a forging allows it to bend or flex from end to end more easily than a cast crank. Pontiac discovered the benefits of the ductile cast-iron crank in the early 1960s and immediately discontinued its 421 Super Duty forgings in favor of the cast Arma-Steel units for all 1963 Super Duty cars. The cast crank does not flex and it does not bend. Oh, sure, if you spin a bearing the heat generated can bend the crank, but of course this is abnormal use.

If you have an engine that is prone to detonation, a forged crank is for you. It will bend and flex a little farther before it cracks or breaks. But unless youíre running nitro-methane, or are having major tuning problems, a properly prepared cast crank will suffice for any horsepower level achievable with the Pontiac engine today. If you break a properly prepared cast crank, you have other problems."

http://www.pontiacpower.com/Three%20inch%20conversion.htmhttp://www.pontiacpower.com/Three%20inch%20conversion.htm

The high performance small blocks (365 and 375 HP 327's) were special in several ways...high performance cam, high rise aluminum intake (or Rochester Fuel Injection), dual point distributor, etc. About the same "special" as a Jet Thrust engine vs a regular 289.

I'm not defending the Chevy motor here, but when an article starts out with so many errors, I tend not to believe the rest of it. It's all "interesting data", but how much is true?





http://static.flickr.com/100/301465853_2dbe07b7c6_m.jpg
Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

JDP
12-12-2006, 12:01 PM
The Studebaker data comes from a SAE paper and the parts numbers listed are correct. I suspect he was just weak on mouse motor history.

http://stude.com/sig.jpg
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
http://stude.com
My Ebay Items
http://www.stude.com/EBAY/

64 GT hawk
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black)
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starlight
52 Starliner
51 Commander

Dick Steinkamp
12-12-2006, 12:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by JDP

The Studebaker data comes from a SAE paper and the parts numbers listed are correct. I suspect he was just weak on mouse motor history.



Could be...but for me, it's like someone describing how Studebaker used Ford 289 engines and that they are still made in Canada, etc, then going on to give me "information" on another subject. I'd tend to put it all in the BS category...right or wrong.

http://static.flickr.com/100/301465853_2dbe07b7c6_m.jpg
Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

John Kirchhoff
12-12-2006, 01:06 PM
I don't know about any of Chevy-Stude stuff, but I'd have to think that a forged crank is "tougher" than a cast crank. Maybe not stronger, but better able to handle harsh conditions. The reason I believe this is that Chrysler used forged cranks on their 225 and 318 industrial engines(I have both) while using cast cranks on auto and light truck engines of the same year. That pretty well rules out possible differences in production costs, tooling and such. Besides, stiffer and stronger isn't always better. Look at a fishing pole.

Roscomacaw
12-12-2006, 02:00 PM
I don't know Chevy stuff either (don't care to.[}:)]), but the Stude facts persented here are on the mark.;)

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe

JDP
12-12-2006, 03:00 PM
Dick, I think you are tossing the baby out with the bath water. If Studebob or me misspoke on a Chevy's bore for example, I'd hate to think you'd automatically not trust a Studebaker post by us. :)

http://stude.com/sig.jpg
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
http://stude.com
My Ebay Items
http://www.stude.com/EBAY/

64 GT hawk
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black)
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starlight
52 Starliner
51 Commander

Dick Steinkamp
12-12-2006, 03:46 PM
quote:Originally posted by JDP

Dick, I think you are tossing the baby out with the bath water. If Studebob or me misspoke on a Chevy's bore for example, I'd hate to think you'd automatically not trust a Studebaker post by us. :)


Yea...I think I made too big a deal out of this already.

I guess if I knew the author, it would make a big difference. If I knew it was written by a Studebaker "expert" (you, Biggs, Palma, Duane, etc.) I'd trust the Studebaker information presented (and just give you a ration about the Chevy info [}:)].

As it stands, I can't help but think the author may know as little about Studebakers as he does about Chevys. As someone who doesn't know the history of the Jet Thrust engines, how could I accept only SOME of the information...and how would I decide which parts were accurate? Sort of like reading one of the many eBay ads posted here that are chock full of Studebaker "myths", but probably also contain some truth. I don't take the time to try to sort out the facts from fiction on those (maybe I should). I just chuckle and move on.

I think (as a group...me included) we are quick to jump on mis-information that is out there about Studebakers. We've all heard the stories at car shows and swap meets and even seen the articles in major car magazines that misrepresent Studebakers and help create the "urban legends" we all find at the least amusing and at most make us angry. Because of that, I would hope we'd be especially careful about "facts" on other makes. We don't want to give those brand X guys any more ammo :)

http://static.flickr.com/100/301465853_2dbe07b7c6_m.jpg
Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

JDP
12-12-2006, 04:51 PM
You were correct to point out the Chevy errors that I would have missed. I was just commenting that the Studebaker stuff was accurate. I recall in my NPR interview that I stated incorrectly that the Avanti still held the record for a sedan, when in fact it I was told it lost it. I think the guy was quoting Chevy history from limited knowledge and you correctly set us straight, just as I was corrected.

http://stude.com/sig.jpg
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
http://stude.com
My Ebay Items
http://www.stude.com/EBAY/

64 GT hawk
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black)
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starlight
52 Starliner
51 Commander

Mike
12-13-2006, 04:21 AM
Which issue of "Jet Thrust News" is the article from? Who wrote it?
The material starts with a quotation mark. Where does the quote end?
Mike M.

JDP
12-13-2006, 09:07 AM
It was all quoted, for the other info as to date and the rest, I cut and pasted it from one of the back issues here:

http:/stude.com/JTN

http://stude.com/sig.jpg
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
http://stude.com
My Ebay Items
http://www.stude.com/EBAY/

64 GT hawk
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black)
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
63 Lark 2 door #2
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starliner
51 Commander

2R2
12-13-2006, 01:36 PM
The Jet Thrust Article was compiled by Jim Pepper, who I would consider an extemely knowledgeable individual on Studebaker R-series engines. Remember, Jim is the high performance advisor for the Studebaker Co-Operator.

Eric
'63 R2-Lark (barely surviving)
'49 2R-5 Truck (orginal survivor)

PackardV8
12-14-2006, 12:04 AM
Jim Pepper is as good as there ever has been on Studebaker V8s. If he says something about it, it is gospel.

However, he doesn't seem to know much about the Chevy V8. Thus, as do we all, he needs to be careful about stating as fact in print the detritus which goes around anywhere car guys gather. If one does not know it from experience or from a reputable reference source, don't put it in print. Once in print and on the internet, it never goes away, but just keeps being quoted and passed around.

thnx, jv.

PackardV8

Chicken Hawk
12-14-2006, 11:43 PM
As far as I know, everything about the Stude is correct except the two items below on the carbs. The R 1 carb might be less CFM than the R 2 but when I contacted Carter with all the numbers I could find on all the parts of the carb several years ago, they told me they needed one more set of numbers which I could not find to give an exact number but the CFM was between 600 and 635.

The other is the floats on the R 2. All I've ever seen had an aluminum "X" inside to reinforce them, not foam filled. That doesn't mean maybe some were not foam filled but I've not seen any.

Ted

[quote] All four-barrel engines used an AFB from 63 on. The standard engine used a small CFM sized version but I donít recall what size it was. The R1 used one that flows about 500 CFM. The R2 uses a special built sealed unit with foam filled floats.

Chicken Hawk
12-14-2006, 11:45 PM
As far as I know, everything about the Stude is correct except the two items below on the carbs. The R 1 carb might be less CFM than the R 2 but when I contacted Carter with all the numbers I could find on all the parts of the carb several years ago, they told me they needed one more set of numbers which I could not find to give an exact number but the CFM was between 600 and 635.

The other is the floats on the R 2. All I've ever seen had an aluminum "X" inside to reinforce them, not foam filled. That doesn't mean maybe some were not foam filled but I've not seen any.

Ted

[quote] All four-barrel engines used an AFB from 63 on. The standard engine used a small CFM sized version but I donít recall what size it was. The R1 used one that flows about 500 CFM. The R2 uses a special built sealed unit with foam filled floats.

53k
12-17-2006, 09:07 AM
Hey Dick,
I certainly don't know Chev V-8 engines, but the first time I saw the valve train on one I couldn't believe my eyes- no rocker arm shaft, just individual stamped sheet metal rockers held to the head by what looked a little like rivets(?). Even my son's '79 L-82 'Vette had that setup. When he beefed up the engine he replaced all that. See the engine description in http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&sspagename=ADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31&viewitem=&item=230018721154
I'm sure GM had good reason to build them that way, but to my simplistic thinking, it was pretty flimsy.

[img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/R-4.JPG[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/64L.JPG[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/64P.jpg[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/53K.jpg[/img=right]Paul Johnson
'53 Commander Starliner (since 1966)
'64 Daytona Wagonaire (original owner)
'64 Daytona Convertible (2006)
Museum R-4 engine

Dick Steinkamp
12-17-2006, 10:20 AM
quote:Originally posted by 53k

Hey Dick,
I certainly don't know Chev V-8 engines, but the first time I saw the valve train on one I couldn't believe my eyes- no rocker arm shaft, just individual stamped sheet metal rockers held to the head by what looked a little like rivets(?). Even my son's '79 L-82 'Vette had that setup. When he beefed up the engine he replaced all that. See the engine description in http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&sspagename=ADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31&viewitem=&item=230018721154
I'm sure GM had good reason to build them that way, but to my simplistic thinking, it was pretty flimsy.


They certainly do look flimsy compared to the Stude set up...but I don't think those stamped steel rockers were a common failure point on the (stock) SBC in the 50+ years they've been building that motor. They probably cost a fraction of a rocker shaft set up to manufacture and assemble...and if they didn't break, that's more bottom line for the maker (or, lower price to the consumer and more market share for the maker).

I wonder if Stude could have afforded to redesign their engines if they would have actually stuck with the same V8 through '64 or if they would have had a more modern design by the late 50's or so like the other makers.

Nice Corvette! I'm surprised it didn't bid higher than it did. Great ad. I like the video. I'll bet we start seeing more and more of that on eBay.



http://static.flickr.com/132/322649409_9f34cfd542_m.jpg
Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

CHAMP
12-17-2006, 11:35 AM
Had a 327 C.I. Chev. in a 57 Chev. Would bring it off the line at 65 hundred r.p.m. and shift at 72-74 hundred R.P.M. Ran this car at the dragstrip for several years and had no valve train or engine problems. The original small block Chev was designed to be cheap to manufacture. The good performance was lucky? The Studebaker is also a very good engine, but I don't think its fair to either one to compare them to each other! [8D]













c

GARY H 2DR.SEDAN 48 STUDEBAKER CHAMPION NORTHEAST MD.

53k
12-17-2006, 07:47 PM
quote:
Nice Corvette! I'm surprised it didn't bid higher than it did. Great ad. I like the video. I'll bet we start seeing more and more of that on eBay.

Thanks. My son REALLY hated to sell it. There were something like 52 '79 Vettes on ebay at that time, none even coming close to reserve. However, his high bidder wanted it badly and offered to pay his reserve so it worked out ok. As it turned out, the buyer, a young woman psychotherapist, was VERY pleased with the car- better than she expected.
The video is so easy to put in the listing. I took the short clips with a digital camera in movie mode (avi?) which downloads just easily as jpeg pix. Then I put them in my web space by ftp, opened them and copied the urls and put them in the listing.
BTW, after the car was gone he told me that one time he had it up to 140 mph on I-81 and it was still winding.

[img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/R-4.JPG[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/64L.JPG[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/64P.jpg[/img=right][img=right]http://www.frontiernet.net/~thejohnsons/Forum%20signature%20pix/53K.jpg[/img=right]Paul Johnson
'53 Commander Starliner (since 1966)
'64 Daytona Wagonaire (original owner)
'64 Daytona Convertible (2006)
Museum R-4 engine